Columbus--The leader of a group hoping
to amend Ohio’s constitution to include same-sex
marriage is undaunted by Attorney General Mike
DeWine’s rejection of the initial language, and
says another attempt will be made.

Freedom to Marry Ohio collected 1,764 signatures
and submitted ballot language and a summary to
DeWine on March 1. This is the first step
to amending the state constitution.

Meanwhile, the statewide LGBT advocacy organization
Equality Ohio is still being cautious about joining
the effort.

DeWine found more than the minimum 1,000 signatures
to be valid, but he had problems with the text.

In a letter, he told petitioners that the summary
they submitted was not “a fair and truthful statement
of the proposed constitutional amendment for three
reasons.”

The proposed amendment reads: “Be it resolved
by the people of the State of Ohio that Article
XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution be adopted
and read as follows: § 11. In the State of Ohio
and its political subdivisions, marriage shall
be a union of two consenting adults and no religious
institution shall be required to perform or recognize
a marriage.”

A five-part summary was included with the amendment.

“First,” wrote DeWine, “the summary is longer
than the text of the amendment.” He explained that
this does not meet a constitutional requirement
defined by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Second, DeWine took issue with a summary statement
that the proposed amendment allows “political subdivisions
to not recognize a legal status for relationships
of unmarried individuals.”

“The text of the amendment does not indicate that
political subdivisions would retain these rights,” he
wrote.

“Third,” DeWine concluded, “the summary states
that the amendment retains ‘the portions of Title 31
that codifies this Amendment.’ However, the text
of the amendment does not contain any reference
to Title 31.”

Title 31 of the Ohio Revised Code covers marriage,
domestic relations and children.

The amendment’s backer, Ian James of Columbus,
says he expected DeWine’s rejection and he’s going
forward with a new version.

“[W]e expected the AG rejection and drafted a
revised summary petition,” James wrote in a March 10
email. “The issue of brevity, Title 31 and the individual recognition have been
addressed. The petition process continues and we
anticipate filing the new summary petition next
week.”

At press time March 20, the new language
had not yet been filed and James had not shared
what the new proposal will be.

Asked if the broader LGBT community has been consulted
or surveyed as to what the new language should
be, James responded, “Yes. And the Coalition and
Committee continue to build a strong winning team
effort.”

However, James did not respond to a follow-up
question on who he had spoken to.

He also remains silent on an earlier query about
any financial connection to the campaign.

James was asked in a March 6 email, “Will
your company, the Strategy Network, or any company
you may affiliate with professionally, have a stake
in this campaign, should it go forward?” He did
not answer.

James is the chief executive officer of the Strategy
Network, a campaign consulting firm. According
to its website, the firm’s specialties include
ballot planning and management, voter identification
and persuasion, petition and ballot placement,
door to door canvassing and web based communications.

He is also the CEO of Professional Petition Management,
LLC, which is a signature-gathering firm.

In order to make the ballot, Freedom to Marry
Ohio will need to submit 385,253 valid signatures
from all around Ohio.

Freedom to Marry Ohio lists its address as 1349
East Broad Street in Columbus, which is also the
address of the Strategy Network and Professional
Petition Management.

Firms who consult for campaigns get paid whether
the end result is favorable or not.

Equality Ohio is still
cautious

Equality Ohio is still not endorsing the effort
and issued a second statement pointing to “reasonable
questions” about the language as one of the reasons.

Equality Ohio director Ed Mullen said the organization
has “engaged in the due diligence and deliberation
on the marriage amendment” and the research has
shown three significant findings.

Mullen wrote: “There are three clear takeaways
from this research:

“1. There is a lot of excitement in Ohio for an
effort to achieve marriage equality;

“2. There are reasonable questions about the current
language, process and timing that will need to
be resolved before many of the community members
we have spoken to will support this effort; and

“3. The effort to achieve marriage equality in
Ohio will be a difficult one that will require
significant resources, particularly financial resources.”

The organization’s caution comes from the response
to a presentation made by James at Equality Ohio’s
Leadership Summit on March 3.

About a month earlier, James had created a Facebook page to cajole Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman into
joining a national list of mayors that support
marriage equality.

The social media effort was successful, and as
it grew, James decided to launch an effort to amend
Ohio’s constitution.

However, James did not get consensus on the language
to be proposed, or find out if there is support
for a campaign that could cost $10 million and
tens of thousands of volunteer hours.

Jacob McClain of Ask Cleveland noted at the Leadership
Summit that James had not been in touch with organizations
expert in LGBT ballot initiatives or sought counsel
from a campaign in Maine that also seeks to overturn
that state’s marriage ban by initiative this year.

“We have stirred it up a bit,” James responded. “This
is what democracy looks like.”

This material is copyrighted by the Gay People’s Chronicle.
Permission is given to repost no more than
the headline, byline, and one or two paragraphs,
with the full name of the Gay People’s Chronicle
and a link to the full article on our website.
Reproduction of the entire article is prohibited
without specific written permission.